What's Your Favorite Startegy

[eglove]

Every 6 months or so, LewRockwell.com likes to sell "populism" as a saving grace of libertarian stragegy based on an article by Rothbard called, "Right-Wing Populism." It may be one of the most misinterpreted articles by Rothbard as well. It's currently driving Cantwell's descension into fascism (I halfway believe he's using 'populism' to try to take libertarians in that direction, not the other way around.)

Rothbard notes that the problem with libertarian strategy, in general, is that there is too much concentration on trying to 'correct' people, especially intellectual elites, into libertarianism when truth is not what they care about.
He suggests that libertarians need not only point out the flaws in current political thinking but expose the political elite for what they really are to the masses. He then suggests being intelligent about who you expose elites to. It is most effective to target those who are most oppressed.

Helping your surrounding culture to think in a way that forces them to consider that their choices can negatively affect their neighbors is much more effective than a single vote in a ballot box. It's certainly more effective than supporting said culture's racism and tendency towards violence. Getting people into that mindset does not require you to sell them on the non-aggression principle, or libertarianism as a philosophy. It only requires that you get them to think about the benefits of those things in the context of what's relevant to them.

^ What Populism Really Is
The real question is, as far as strategy goes, what's worked for you in which situations? There is no magic incantation, but how did you get that convert, or help a person or group make a decision for liberty?

[Jay]

I think there's an inherent problem with "recruiting", in that you're trying to impose (what can most simply be called) how your brain works onto the general population you encounter.

Not talking about the brand of philosophy, but the apparent ability to care about such things at all at a deep level. Being introspective and coming up with your own ideas, not just parroting what you see on the TV.

Public relations/propaganda says it would be easy to manipulate the..."followers" with, shall we say, Trumpisms to convert them to The One True Way of Liberty. But then I get this sick feeling in my stomach that you're not really doing a damn thing even if you won those people over.

You could have a million FSP signers within a month, but you wouldn't be able to relate to them. So, then, what is the point...lol.

[blackie]

Yeah, the public is fickle.

[Russell Kanning]

I don't try to change the intellectual elites, I like almost everything I have read from Rothbard, and I have been accused of "populism". So I probably fit that mold pretty well, although I didn't read the article.
I am always interested in changing people's minds towards truth. It sometimes works. I also have to spend time searching out the truth myself.

[Tom Sawyer]

Shifting the culture is more important than the political process. Culture leads politics, bottom up not top down.

So, yeah, I think getting people to accept one little course change at a time in the way they think about situations is a good thing. I just said to someone today "It's not what the government will allow you to do, the way freedom and our system works is the government disallows things." It's a paradigm shift for most people to see it that way.

The guy that really got me going down the libertarian path usually only discussed one thing at a time and gave me time to digest and think about it. He also started, like the article points to, with an issue that was effecting me personally.

Many libertarians seek purity and talk until they find the one percent that you disagree about and run that into the ground. We are such a small minority that it is silly to alienate people that aren't as far down the road to liberty as we have traveled.

If we are trying to affect the culture as opposed to the political process, it doesn't matter if we only gain one issue at a time with people we influence because we won't be giving political power to their ideas that are less pure.

I think that most people come into the movement from the political path because, face it, the LP has the brand. But I think there are many problems with trying to gain ground and move these ideas forward through political organizations. The civic/cultural avenues are a longer appearing path than the 'Hail Mary pass" dream that political victory promises, but slow and steady does win the race.

[Jay]

Many libertarians seek purity and talk until they find the one percent that you disagree about and run that into the ground. We are such a small minority that it is silly to alienate people that aren't as far down the road to liberty as we have traveled.

Sometimes I think it's hopeless just because of how much we fight among ourselves over what is essentially minor stuff.

Then again, might as well try and figure out a way that will work to make things better here. It's an interesting game, even if I lose.

[Russell Kanning]

I agree with Tom S.
It would be interesting to hear how people got to their current position.

[MaineShark]

Many libertarians seek purity and talk until they find the one percent that you disagree about and run that into the ground. We are such a small minority that it is silly to alienate people that aren't as far down the road to liberty as we have traveled.

The flipside is that when we have someone saying X, and also claiming to be a libertarian, others may judge all libertarians by that individual, if that's the first libertarian they meet (or maybe just the loudest).

If someone says, "I'm a libertarian, and I support Trump" or "I'm a libertarian, and I think it's okay to hit people who insult you," others will hear that and say to themselves, "ah, so that's what libertarians stand for!"  That can do far more damage than we would suffer by driving out that one individual.

If we are trying to affect the culture as opposed to the political process, it doesn't matter if we only gain one issue at a time with people we influence because we won't be giving political power to their ideas that are less pure.

Indeed.  And that's where there's an important distinction: someone who is attempting to speak for liberty and someone who might be brought to liberty are two different critters, and different standards need to apply.  Saying, "I won't talk to you if you're not 100% perfect" is ridiculous, because it eliminates the possibility of educating that individual.  On the other hand, if someone goes around saying that he's an ideal libertarian, he better be able to back that up with something close to perfection, because he's setting a standard by which others will become educated about what libertarians believe.

[eglove]

I agree with Tom S.
It would be interesting to hear how people got to their current position.

I was coming up on the first election I'd decided I would vote in, in 2012, I watched The Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart (not that new, joke stealer) every night and somehow him saying, "I like Ron Paul," rung with me. Watched a few speeches and I was pretty well hooked. I had no idea I was on a path towards libertarianism, I used to consider myself a centrist.

The thing is, most strangers I come across say they're socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Wikipedia defines my generation as generally thinking that way. The only times regular people get adamant about "their team" is when they're arguing names. "Obama isn't that bad! He did this, this, and this!" Same with Bush or any other president. President's are seen as either celebrities or teams. Something people feel a strong connection to, like they're a part of something when they root for one.

However, if you avoid the teams and the names and just talk about what people think is best in general, they sway back towards that center/beginner libertarian ideal. To me, getting people while they're in that frame of mind and speaking generally from there can reinforce what they already believe, but haven't given form to yet.

[Jay]

What "people" want is to not have to think too hard.

I guess you can do the thinking for them, if you're the type.

[eglove]

What "people" want is to not have to think too hard.

I guess you can do the thinking for them, if you're the type.

Or all they know is bullshit and everything they know about politics is no different than a headline like, "9 Cool Tricks to Save on Car Insurance!"

[eglove]

What if I suggested that cynicism, and the assumption that everyone is too stupid or lazy to "get on your level" is a refusal to think? 

[Jay]

What if I suggested that cynicism, and the assumption that everyone is too stupid or lazy to "get on your level" is a refusal to think? 

I am always open to possibilities. Might take a while to analyze and sink in, though.

Shit, I might think I was completely stupid 3 months from now for writing that.

I do believe in nurture over nature, FWIW. At the moment, that is.

[Jay]

Then again, there's that whole predestination vs. free will thing. Which is a whole 'nother ball game.

[eglove]

Then again, there's that whole predestination vs. free will thing. Which is a whole 'nother ball game.

Benefits, doubts, positive thoughts in an evil world. All that stuff. Who knows what the hell really helps? Honestly, I think we're on a track predestined track created by human action and growing intelligence with greater access to information. Or Trump will win the Presidency and people will soon forget that it's water that plants need, not electrolytes. I may as well pretend the latter for now.